For a large validation task is chain of responsibility pattern a good bet?

问题

I need to build a process which will validate a record against ~200 validation rules. A record can be one of ~10 types. There is some segmentation from validation rules to record types but there exists a lot of overlap which prevents me from cleanly binning the validation rules.

During my design I'm considering a chain of responsibility pattern for all of the validation rules. Is this a good idea or is there a better design pattern?

回答1:

Validation is frequently a Composite pattern. When you break it down, you want to seperate the what you want to from the how you want to do it, you get:

If foo is valid then do something.

Here we have the abstraction is valid -- Caveat: This code was lifted from currrent, similar examples so you may find missing symbology and such. But this is so you get the picture. In addition, the

Result

Object contains messaging about the failure as well as a simple status (true/false). This allow you the option of just asking "did it pass?" vs. "If it failed, tell me why"

QuickCollection

and

QuickMap

Are convenience classes for taking any class and quickly turning them into those respected types by merely assigning to a delegate. For this example it means your composite validator is already a collection and can be iterated, for example.

You had a secondary problem in your question: "cleanly binding" as in, "Type A" -> rules{a,b,c}" and "Type B" -> rules{c,e,z}"

This is easily managed with a Map. Not entirely a Command pattern but close

Map<Type,Validator> typeValidators = new HashMap<>();

Setup the validator for each type then create a mapping between types. This is really best done as bean config if you're using Java but Definitely use dependency injection

    public interface Validator<T>{


    public Result validate(T value);


    public static interface Result {

        public static final Result OK = new Result() {
            @Override
            public String getMessage() {
                return "OK";
            }

            @Override
            public String toString() {
                return "OK";
            }

            @Override
            public boolean isOk() {
                return true;
            }
        };

        public boolean isOk();

        public String getMessage();
    }
    }

Now some simple implementations to show the point:

public class MinLengthValidator implements Validator<String> {

private final SimpleResult FAILED;

private Integer minLength;

public MinLengthValidator() {
    this(8);
}

public MinLengthValidator(Integer minLength) {
    this.minLength = minLength;
    FAILED = new SimpleResult("Password must be at least "+minLength+" characters",false);
}

@Override
public Result validate(String newPassword) {
    return newPassword.length() >= minLength ? Result.OK : FAILED;
}

@Override
public String toString() {
    return this.getClass().getSimpleName();
}
}

Here is another we will combine with

public class NotCurrentValidator implements Validator<String> {

    @Autowired
    @Qualifier("userPasswordEncoder")
    private PasswordEncoder encoder;

    private static final SimpleResult FAILED = new SimpleResult("Password cannot be your current password",false);

    @Override
    public Result validate(String newPassword) {
        boolean passed = !encoder.matches(newPassword,user.getPassword());
        return (passed ? Result.OK : FAILED);
    }

    @Override
    public String toString() {
        return this.getClass().getSimpleName();
    }

}

Now here is a composite:

public class CompositePasswordRule extends QuickCollection<Validator> implements Validator<String> {


public CompositeValidator(Collection<Validator> rules) {
    super.delegate = rules;
}

public CompositeValidator(Validator<?>... rules) {
    super.delegate = Arrays.asList(rules);
}



@Override
public CompositeResult validate(String newPassword) {
    CompositeResult result = new CompositeResult(super.delegate.size());
    for(Validator rule : super.delegate){
        Result temp = rule.validate(newPassword);
        if(!temp.isOk())
            result.put(rule,temp);
    }

    return result;
}


    public static class CompositeResult extends QuickMap<Validator,Result> implements Result {
        private Integer appliedCount;

        private CompositeResult(Integer appliedCount) {
            super.delegate = VdcCollections.delimitedMap(new HashMap<PasswordRule, Result>(), "-->",", ");
            this.appliedCount = appliedCount;
        }

        @Override
        public String getMessage() {
            return super.delegate.toString();
        }

        @Override
        public String toString() {
            return super.delegate.toString();
        }

        @Override
        public boolean isOk() {
            boolean isOk = true;
            for (Result r : delegate.values()) {
                isOk = r.isOk();
                if(!isOk)
                    break;
            }
            return isOk;
        }
        public Integer failCount() {
            return this.size();
        }

        public Integer passCount() {
            return appliedCount - this.size();
        }
    }
}

and now a snippet of use:

private Validator<String> pwRule = new CompositeValidator<String>(new MinLengthValidator(),new NotCurrentValidator());

Validator.Result result = pwRule.validate(newPassword);
if(!result.isOk())
    throw new PasswordConstraintException("%s", result.getMessage());

user.obsoleteCurrentPassword();
user.setPassword(passwordEncoder.encode(newPassword));
user.setPwExpDate(DateTime.now().plusDays(passwordDaysToLive).toDate());
userDao.updateUser(user);

回答2:

Chain of responsibility implies that there is an order in which the validations must take place. I would probably use something similar to the Strategy pattern where you have a Set of validation strategies that are applied to a specific type of record. You could then use a factory to examine the record and apply the correct set of validations.

来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/23408923/for-a-large-validation-task-is-chain-of-responsibility-pattern-a-good-bet